I went to the library today, and by the periodicals was a magazine entitled "Creation." It was full of all sorts of articles attempting to attack evolution, but my eye was caught by a cover story, "How Did Dinos Get So Big?" The article was talking about how many extant reptilian species undergo lifelong growth, and fossil evidence supports the idea that dinosaurs did the same, trying to convince the reader at the same time that many species of dinosaur were simply uncommonly large examples of other species (for example, T. Rex was just an uncommonly large tyrannosaur, nevermind the distinct two-digit forelimbs). Anyway, there was one caption for a pair of photos that caught my attention:

DINOSAUR SKULLSTop: Apatosaurus excelsusBottom: Diplodocus carnegii

The skulls below are from two hugesauropods with different names. Yet theskulls are almost identical. Thus they arelikely from the same Diplodocid kind.Diplodocus was a very long and slendervariety (27 m long, but only 10 tonnes),while Apatosaurus was a slightly shorterbut much heavier variety (25 m, 35 tonnes).So while there are many dinosaur names,there were most likely comparatively fewcreated kinds. This means that Noah's Arkneeded comparatively few pairs ofdinosaurs.

As a note, the skulls really did look quite similar, aside from the shapes of some passages in the skulls. It was easy to see how the Brontosaur chimera existed for so long. However, ignoring the writer overlooking obviously vast differences in the structure of the thorax, using unconventional nomenclature, and revealing his bias for a specifically Christian creation, and other wrong crap, he just implied the emergence of novel alleles. Not all of those differences could arise from environmental factors, after all.